Court tells finance firm to return confiscated car :ORDER REVERSED OVER HIDDEN FACT

Slamming Reliance Capital Ltd. for hiding facts from court and filing a false case, a district judge has directed it to return a vehicle it allowed the company to confiscate from a buyer.

Angry that the company filed a recovery case against a man who died six months earlier and shielded this crucial information from the court, ADJ M R Sethi recently cancelled his previous order and asked the company to return the vehicle to the family.

Recalling its previous order of allowing the company to take the possession of the car the judge criticized the firm for not approaching the court with ‘‘clean hands’’ and ‘‘withholding a material fact.’’

ADJ Sethi has further observed, ‘‘The receiver, who had taken the vehicle from the residence of the deceased respondent is directed to hand over the possession of the vehicle to the present applicant (Vivek).’’

Reined in by a SC order prohibiting finance companies from using strong-arm tactics to recover money from ‘‘defaulters’’ the leading finance company opted for an alternative method by filing a false case against one of its customer in the court to reclaim its dues. The matter came to light, when one Vivek Sharma, a lawyer by profession, knocked the doors of the court and found out that his deceased father was made a respondent in the case without court’s knowledge that he had expired.

Sharma filed a counter case against the firm saying that his father, against whom the case had been filed, had died six months before the filing of the case and the company was well aware of the fact. Yet, the company’s goons came and took away his car to settle the dues.

Sharma’s father had applied for a car loan with Reliance Capital Ltd to buy a Maruti Swift for himself. Within months of obtaining a car the 77-year-old loanee expired. Vivek Sharma soon informed the company about his father’s demise and also showed his willingness to pay off the remaining amount. Reliance, in return, sent Sharma a letter on August 28, 2008, acknowledging the fact that his father had expired and that for the transfer of loan liability, Vivek would be required to pay the remaining amount.

However, the Sharma household was stunned one day to find out that the recovery agents of Reliance had come with a court order dated September 1, 2008, for the repossession of the car. When Sharma’s wife refused to hand over the keys, the agents towed away the car.

In its order the judge gave Reliance Capital seven days time to return possession of the car and noted, ‘‘A person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court. Such litigation can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.’’

Despite attempts to contact the Reliance Capital officials, they refused to comment. A senior official from Reliance Capital, on the condition of anonymity, said that the company was trying to get in touch with Sharma. “We are in the process of getting in touch with Sharma and only after meeting him we would like to comment on the issue,” he said.

With Thanks from the Times of India
Source :- The Times of India 29 September 2008 P 5 Delhi
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in